Monday, September 13, 2004, 11:00 AM EST
CONTACT: Edward Jackson

(Washington, DC) – Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) today released a report demonstrating that racial profiling practices by law enforcement have expanded in the government's war on terror and have affected an estimated one of nine Americans. The 50-page report, Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, and Human Rights in the United States, asserts that law enforcement's use of race, religion, country of origin, or ethnic and religious appearance as a proxy for criminal suspicion undermines national security. Racial profiling is so pervasive that there are an estimated 32 million victims in the United States—approximately the population of Canada—and occurs while individuals are walking, driving, shopping, flying, sitting at home, or worshipping. AIUSA's analysis of statistical data also found that an estimated 87 million Americans are at risk of being subjected to racial profiling.

"Racial profiling blinds law enforcement to real criminal threats and creates a hole in the national security net large enough to drive a truck through," said Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director of AIUSA. "Unless the federal and state governments end this pernicious practice, the frightening reality is that with terrorist acts on the rise, that truck may be loaded with explosives and the driver anyone but a Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent. We are all at risk."

The recent cases of alleged "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh and British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid reveal that Al Qaeda has an ability to recruit a diverse range of sympathizers. Lindh, a white US ciitizen, and Reid, a British citizen, would not necessarily have been identified by programs like the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) and US-VISIT that target Arab, Muslim and South Asian men and boys. Additionally, the report points to the cases of Timothy McVeigh, who eluded arrest while law enforcement searched for Arab suspects, and to DC snipers John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who continued on a killing spree while officials looked for "a white man in a white van."

Benjamin Todd Jealous, Director of AIUSA's Domestic Human Rights Program, said, "During our research, we collected testimony from Native Americans who were profiled going to and from religious ceremonies, Hispanics who were profiled while in the sanctity of their homes, African Americans who were profiled walking down the street, and a Boy Scout, who happens to be Muslim, constantly being subjected to airport searches. Racial profiling is so pervasive and widely accepted that it has become a corrosive acid on this nation's spirit of unity."

The report, based on a series of hearings across the nation and a yearlong analysis of profiling
practices by law enforcement and of statistical data, states, "Prior to 9/11, racial profiling was frequently referred to as 'driving while black.' Now, the practice can be more accurately characterized

as driving, flying, walking, worshipping, shopping or staying at home while Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, Muslim or of Middle-Eastern appearance." A poll conducted in August 2004 by Bendixon & Associates that was commissioned by New California Media and cosponsored by AIUSA supported this finding. The poll disaggregates Arab Americans and reported that they are three times more likely to have experienced racial profiling than the rest of the non-Hispanic white population and that Muslims were more likely than non-Muslims to have experienced racial profiling since the September 11th attacks. Despite assurances from the Bush Administration to the contrary, the data also showed that 45 and 46 percent of Arab and Muslim Americans respectively said they believe the Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Justice are using racial profiling to screen individuals for security purposes.

Judge Timothy K. Lewis, Of Counsel at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis and the chair of AIUSA's Congressional-style hearings in San Francisco, Oakland, New York City, Chicago, Tulsa, and Dallas, said, "As a former federal judge and prosecutor, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to apply its principles equally and fairly. But how do you convince a person who for decades has suffered the humiliating and dehumanizing effects of profiling that those venerable ideals also apply to him? Over and over again, we heard testimony from people who said, 'I am not judged on my contributions and my good intentions. I am constantly judged based on the color of my skin, the place I was born, and the way I worship God.' That is wrong."

In 2001, President Bush pledged to end racial profiling. On July 23, 2004 he said that he is "the first President of the United States to ban racial profiling in Federal law enforcement." However, the ban is deficient in a number of areas. It is not a law, but a policy that has no enforcement mechanisms. The ban does not require data collection, does not apply to state and local police, and does not prohibit profiling based on religion. Furthermore, the Bush Administration's ban can be suspended at anytime for "national security" purposes.

"There is no scenario under which the Bush Administration can say that this ban fulfills the President's 2001 promise to end racial profiling in the US," said Jealous. AIUSA's report further documents the shortcomings of the current ban in a state-by-state analysis showing that 27 states—more than half—do not ban racial profiling at all. Moreover, 46 states have failed to ban religious profiling; 35 states continue to allow pedestrian "stop and frisk" searches, and only six of the 15 that ban these searches use a definition of racial profiling that can actually be enforced.

Goering said, "The widespread practice of racial profiling diminishes confidence in the police and makes individuals reluctant to call 911 or cooperate with law enforcement. One speaker, who testified at our hearing in Chicago, referred to this catch- 22, saying that it made him feel like he was in the middle of the ocean drowning but was too afraid to grab on to the life boat."

Along with the release of this report, Amnesty International is launching a public education campaign designed to generate support for a comprehensive federal law banning race-focused law enforcement practices. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2004 (H.R. 3847 and S 2132) has 140 bipartisan cosponsors.

Press conference speakers included: Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Amnesty International USA; Judge Timothy K. Lewis, Of Counsel Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis;
Matthew Fogg, AIUSA Board Member, US Marshals Service; Cathy Harris, US Customs Agent, Whistleblower; Donald Boyd, Regional VP HUD, victim of racial profiling; Mary Culley, Seminole-Creek American Indian, victim of religious and racial profiling.

Visit www.amnestyusa.orgfor more information on racial profiling and for a copy of "Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, and Human Rights in the United States." For more information on victims and testimony provided at AIUSA's hearings please contact Edward Jackson, Media Director, at 202-544-0200 ext. 302.

Send this page to a friend

Your Email:
Friend's Email:
Add a Message:
Security code: (case sensitive)